Molten Steel

[Mercutio]

No, numerous credible witnesses who confirmed the existence of molten steel at the WTC.

Confirmed? Could you point to their confirmation, as opposed to their initial claim?

When did they they confirm this? Did you contact anyone within, say, the last 5 years?

C7, which would you prefer--are you a cowardly liar, or a lying coward? Or do you want, in the interest of accuracy, to be called both a liar and a coward?

 

[funk de fino]

The NIST FAQ requires all the weight of the top section to be applied to the intact floor below suddenly.

That is NOT what happened.

I am not questioning the amount of the mass or the acceleration. They are irrelevant to the point of where the weight was applied.

Semantics. Irrelevant to the point which is where the weight was applied.

Irrelevant to the point. The core columns applied the weight they were carrying to the core area. The NIST FAQ says this weight was applied to the floor area outside the core.

The NIST FAQ is a simplistic FARCE.

Irrelevant to the point which is where the weight was applied.

I covered that in another post. There is NO scenario that results in all the weight of the top section being applied to the floor outside the core area.

Irrelevant to the point which is where the weight was applied.

NIST did the calculations. They are not in dispute. They are irrelevant to the point which is where the weight was applied.

How many handwaves in one post? What a coward and a charlatan. You have no idea what you talking about. You have contradicted yourself and flip flopped between claims. This is childs stuff and you so deluded by your bias that you have to lie. What an utterly sad case.

 

[George 152]

Thermite does not explode C7.
It burns and burns very hot for a short period of time.
We use Thermite kits to weld railway track.
The military use thermite grenades to destroy equipment.

 

[Christopher7]

STEEL is only one kind of metal.

Please show me where Loizeaux or Astaneh state that it was Steel,

Been there, done that, many times.

and then prove how they were able to determine this

It's a no-brainer. Did it ever occur to you that these professionals can recognize molten steel when they see it? Do you really think they don't know what they are talking about? Get serious.

(in other words provide their analysis of the molten material proving it was steel).

You ask for what you know does not exist in a desperate attempt to deny the obvious.

Explanations for MOLTEN METAL:

1. Molten Aluminum
2. Molten Copper
3. Molten Tin
4. Molten Alloys of the above

TAM

There were no other metals in concentrations under all three buildings. You are ignoring the witnesses who saw steel beams dripping as they were pulled from the pile.

This is just proof that you guys are on somebody's payroll because you cannot possibly be as stupid as you are pretending to be.

 

[Christopher7]

Thermite does not explode C7.
It burns and burns very hot for a short period of time.
We use Thermite kits to weld railway track.
The military use thermite grenades to destroy equipment.

What else can melt large amounts of steel?

 

[Christopher7]

How many handwaves in one post?

Handwaves?

You have no idea what you talking about.

You are playing dumb just like T.A.M. I'm not buying it.

 

[Christopher7]

deleted

 

[beachnut]

Handwaves?

You are playing dumb just like T.A.M. I'm not buying it.

Thermite? And you are not playing.

What else can melt large amounts of steel?

Large amounts of heat that you can't quantify.

 

[Christopher7]

Thermite does not explode C7.
It burns and burns very hot for a short period of time.
We use Thermite kits to weld railway track.
The military use thermite grenades to destroy equipment.

There is no other explanation for the molten steel in the debris piles. There were no other metals in concentration under all three buildings.

 

[Bananaman]

Chris7, you make idiotic statements like

There is no other explanation for the molten steel in the debris piles.

even after being repeatedly shown why statements like these are the very heart of boneheadedness. Are you deliberately trying to prove yourself to be thick?

I don't get it.

I used to know someone like you at school. We had a name for him. I won't repeat it, but funnily enough, ooh, just off the top of my head, I can think of someone for whom that name wouldn't be inappropriate 30 years later.

Bananaman.

 

[funk de fino]

Handwaves?

Yes, this many times over

Irrelevant to the point which is where the weight was applied.

Height of stupidity as has been shown to you. Thats why you ignore the questions and run away like a small child.

You are playing dumb just like T.A.M. I'm not buying it.

I'd rather be dumb than dishonest and bitter. You have made a complete and utter spanner of yourself in this thread. It exceeds the WTC7 10 storey hole thread by an order of magnitude.

 

[funk de fino]

Did it ever occur to you that these professionals can recognize molten steel when they see it?

I work in the oil industry but I could not tell the difference between unleaded petrol, leaded petrol, bio fuel or diesel just by seeing it from a distance, videos or in photographs. You argument is flawed.

There were no other metals in concentrations under all three buildings. You are ignoring the witnesses who saw steel beams dripping as they were pulled from the pile.

There was plenty aluminium alloys

This is just proof that you guys are on somebody's payroll because you cannot possibly be as stupid as you are pretending to be.

I am on a payroll but not the one you think, how paranoid does that make you look? A canadian and a scot would hardly be on the USG payroll eh?

You are the one who made a claim and then later contradicted it and is not man enough to fess up. You are the one who cannot do simple geometry. You are the one who thinks that the weight moves around the free falling top section. You are the one who refuses to answer the question about what was in the cores because it proves one of your other claims to be hogwash. You are the one who thinks the gravity acting on the top section is irelevant. You are the one who thinks the distance of the drop of the top section is irrelevant. And you still have the nerve to call other here stupid.

I am dreading old age and retiral now after this thread.

 

[Travis]

Is it even thermodynamically possible to have a steel beam sturdy enough at one end to be lifted but hot enough to be molten, and dripping, on the other?

 

[T.A.M.]

There is no other explanation for the molten steel in the debris piles. There were no other metals in concentration under all three buildings.

Are you insane?

So there was no copper, or aluminum in any significant amounts? So the aluminum siding? Not much? The Copper plumbing and wiring? Not much? So the only metal of any significant amount in the WTC1/2/7 debris was Steel?

You realize you are making a real fool of yourself, don't you????

TAM

Edit: oh and in case someone wants to, sorry, I already nominated the above for a March Stundie.

 

[Sunstealer]

It's a no-brainer. Did it ever occur to you that these professionals can recognize molten steel when they see it? Do you really think they don't know what they are talking about? Get serious.

Yep, I'd say that without a shadow of a doubt. It is almost impossible to tell unless you have huge amounts of experience and work daily with various metals at high temperature. These people are professionals and experts in their field, but that does not mean they have a magic ability to know what liquid steel looks like as opposed to any other liquid metal at high temperature.

I'm a qualified metallurgist FFS and I've already stated that I would find it hard to do. Infact there was a thread with pictures of different metals at different temperatures and I couldn't get them all. Most people, and that includes engineers, never see liquid steel or any other liquid metal whilst doing their jobs.

How do you know something is steel by looking at it without experience? You can't (unless you have further information). This is why I'd defer to someone like WhiteLion who does have the knowledge, because they work with liquid metals on a daily basis. They will have more knowledge than you or I, so why do you dismiss them off-hand? Oh that's right, it doesn't confirm with your uneducated, ignorant and deluded theory.

Molten is a word that people use to describe very hot or an intense orange colour. People will say molten lava, molten glass, molten metal, molten plastic to describe what they see, but they don't always mean liquid. It's not hard to see and I've provided examples. Why can't you see this?

Your theory is based on nothing but your willingness to scream inside job, believe a charlatan and a fraud called Jones, shout, "thermite melts steel!" without any thought as to how, how much or how it managed to survive the collapse as a liquid and continue as a liquid for 6 weeks.

If you took 5 minutes to analyse your theory you'd see that there are huge gaping holes. Why don't you look critically at what you are proposing? Why don't you look as critically at Jones' work as you criticise people here? Unless you state your experience and qualifications why should any one take you seriously when you show make these claims without backing them up?

I've bolded the questions to highlight them for C7 - he's not too good at answering questions. Will we get straight answers or nonsense like "denial tactic"? - I'm not taking bets. Common C7 surprise me.

 

[kookbreaker]

Molten is a word that people use to describe very hot or an intense orange colour. People will say molten lava, molten glass, molten metal, molten plastic to describe what they see, but they don't always mean liquid. It's not hard to see and I've provided examples. Why can't you see this?

I've said it before: Many of us have left a chocolate bar in a car on a hot day. How many of us have come to describe the candy bar's condition as being 'melted', when in fact it is not. By C7's standards, if a cook, or even a dishwasher says 'melted' then the chocolate and almonds must have truly turned to a liquid state and there can be no argument.

"WHAT PART OF "THE CHOCOLATE BAR WAS MELTED" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!!?????!?!??!?!?!?!?!?"

 

[George 152]

What else can melt large amounts of steel?

Bessemer furnaces

 

[A W Smith]

Bessemer furnaces

or, my personal favorite
The puddling furnace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Puddling_furnace.jpg

no thats not a cutaway of the remains of the GZ concourse or path station. Thats actually a furnace.

But that a moot point anyway because there simply was no molten steel there, ever.

 

[Christopher7]

There is no other explanation for the molten steel in the debris piles.

Chris7, you make idiotic statements like even after being repeatedly shown why statements like these are the very heart of boneheadedness.

Talk to yourself much?

Come up with another explanation or stop making stupid statements like that one.

 

[Christopher7]

I work in the oil industry but I could not tell the difference between unleaded petrol, leaded petrol, bio fuel or diesel just by seeing it from a distance, videos or in photographs. You argument is flawed.

Not a good comparison.

You are the one who made a claim and then later contradicted it and is not man enough to fess up. You are the one who cannot do simple geometry. You are the one who thinks that the weight moves around the free falling top section. You are the one who refuses to answer the question about what was in the cores because it proves one of your other claims to be hogwash. You are the one who thinks the gravity acting on the top section is irelevant. You are the one who thinks the distance of the drop of the top section is irrelevant. And you still have the nerve to call other here stupid.
I am dreading old age and retiral now after this thread.

You cannot understand [or will not admit] the physical reality that all the weight of the top section cannot be applied to the floor below so you go on a rant.

The NIST FAQ explanation is a simplistic farce.